James is selling raffle tickets for his small organization, the tickets are $1 and the prize is worth $200-$400. He sells a ticket to an acquaintance, but they don’t give him the dollar right away. Time comes to turn in the sold ticket and James pays for the missing cash out of his own pocket. Sure enough that ticket wins.
So James goes to the people running the raffle and explains the situation and makes the pitch that since he paid for the ticket the prize is his. He doesn’t physically have the ticket, but he has the receipt of sale and he is known in the group to be honest in telling the truth in matters.
Who should get the prize in your opinion?
That’s all the information you have, you don’t have nuances beyond what I wrote, and you only get two choices of who gets the prize.
It doesn’t matter who purchased the ticket, the ticket holder should get the prize. James and the acquaintance can fight amongst themselves about it later but the people running the raffle should only care who holds the ticket.
Effectively, he loaned his friend a dollar to buy the ticket. Whether that was a wise decision or not, we can’t know without knowing more about the friend, but it’s the decision he made. The acquaintance owes James a buck, but still gets the prize.
Isn’t there usually a rule that if you’re participating in running the gambling, you’re not allowed to buy in? To avoid insider manipulation (or even the appearance of it).
What if James had bought the ticket and given it to a friend as a birthday gift? I think most people would agree the subsequent winnings belonged to the friend. It’s not a matter of who paid for the ticket; it’s a matter of who owns the ticket.
The ticket holder gets the prize, but he owes James $1. If he’s a good friend he might consider giving James a bit more than that, but all he owes is the dollar.
“Legally,” the acquaintance should get the prize since he holds the ticket. But morally, James should get the prize, because since the acquaintance didn’t actually pay him for the ticket, the acquaintance has not yet become the rightful owner of the ticket.
It’s no different than if you lose a winning lottery ticket, someone picks it up off the ground and claims the jackpot. Technically it’s theirs, but morally the ticket was still your ticket.
It’s fundamentally different from losing a winning lottery ticket. James chose to hand the ticket over without getting paid. James could morally try to talk the raffle runners into holding the prize hostage for the missing dollar, but that’s it.
The people running the raffle explain to James that they won’t give him the prize since as soon as the real ticket holder turns up, he can claim it. And they are not paying out twice.
Just like if somebody buys lotto tickets with a credit card and the drawing occurs before the bill is paid off, the credit card company can’t just claim the winning ticket (and make all the non-winners pay for their losing tickets).